Discussion in 'Reviews' started by W1zzard, Nov 1, 2012.
To read this review go to: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/HD_7970_X_Turbo/
Great review W1zz!
This card is smoking fast only 38% slower than GTX 690, and can do 6 screens. This would be sweet under water, just to bad its $600...
I don't know about anyone else, but overclocking the ram on my 7950 makes it unstable, but doesn't produce any noticeable results. I keep my memory clocks stock so that I can grab that additional 70-90MHZ on my core. That may be what they did to achieve the clocks here.
Nice looking card ^^
Now, with my 6870 IceQ come this "Weight Lifter"... simply doesn't works, is too short.
I use a TT Commander MS-I and now the CM 690 II Advance.
I don't think that 1280 resolution, and 1680 too is relevant for this graphics card. In 2560 resolution performance/dollar for this card is within 5% for Nvidia 680, which makes pricing of this card great, pricing of Nvidia incorrect and this review a farce!
you are free to not look at the other resolutions.
this card is expensive not only compared to GTX 680, but other custom HD 7970 cards, too
TPU reviews are not a farce, and are very comprehensive. If you take your time and look, all the information is there for you to make an informed decision on the product in all aspects.
That is why I am here as a member.
here to troll
Nice review Wiz...!
@ 3870 - I mentioned in another thread that memory overclocking is worth it...and posted a link showing the results. Not sure why you are not getting any scaling... oh well, better for another thread I 'spose.
Love the review as usual W1Z but these dam AMD gpus without the nice metal back plate just turn me off of buying one.
Nice card but the price totally kills it. Seriously, $600?
I dont really understand what's up with that price either, doesnt even have 6gb like the one from Sapphire.
I think part of it is the active mini display port part that is included...those things are not cheap...
The results of maximum overclock for Sapphire HD 7970 Toxic are wrong
it should be 1275 MHz/1885 MHz instead of 1170 MHz/1870 MHz
fixed. thank you. i failed at excel.. looked in the wrong row
Hey W1zzard what was the card's stock voltage?
check the table on the page "Temperatures and Clock Profiles"
or just answer, LOL!
1.25v (mine is the same).
Is it getting easier for any of you to justify a price tag of 600 dollars for a GPU?
I can sorta see why his would ask so much for it. It's the only non reference PCB 7970 Ghz with a dual slot cooler other than the msi lightning BE which here in the cz cost 635$ converted and is yellow. I can also see it as a great option when compared to the VApor-x 6GB cards in terms circuitry quality. But the card came out really late and 8xxx series is basically ready for selling so I really can't see the point in buying of these just so a more powerful card replaces it early next year. I can only see it's appeal for people who want a non reference quad crossfire that doesn't use the lightning. I also doubt a full wc block will come out for it so there really is no point in getting one. It's simply too late and too expensive to be worth it however +20fps from overclocking is a big deal compared to the reference. Over all it's 20% more expensive 8% faster on stock clocks and 25% faster when overclocked.
this card would be a very good buy if it were priced at USD 550 because even the ASUS HD 7970 Matrix Platinum at 1.1 GHZ is sold for 500 bucks. Such a high factory overclock is always a good thing. you are guaranteed the performance and not at the mercy of the silicon lottery.
But frankly the competition is even worse. GTX 680 cards are even more overpriced from a performance point of view. they get hammered by the HD 7970 Ghz at higher resolutions and many models sell for 500 - 550 bucks. so wrt competition its not so bad.
this one looks sleek
W1zzard, nice review, as always. You have to be the most consistent reviewer around. I can take any two reviews you've done, almost from forever, and compare them with each other and have a pretty accurate picture of the differences between the cards. Some of these other sites can't seem to have consistency from one week to the next.
Question on game settings, if I may? With BL2 do you have everything maxed except PhysX? Looking at the test conditions for the review I'm assuming yes. It's just that there are other reviews where the performance is far lower. I'm womdering if either there is some setting you've turned down and forgot to mention, or if they are possibly forcing something in drivers that's incurring a large performance hit?
PhysX requires NV GPU- otherwise it tries to run on CPU which is horrible for that kind of function (because of the coding PhysX is)
Thanks, I realize PhysX was off. I was just wondering if anything else was turned down to improve performance relative to another review I saw. Looking at the other review they said they started the bench on the 2nd level. Possibly it could just be a more demanding part of the game?
Separate names with a comma.